Tag: worldcon

Categories
the human body is made of bullshit worldcon

Heading to Worldcon. I guess.

Yes, I’m going to Worldcon this year. I haven’t really been talking about it much because… well, I’m going to be honest. I’m having a lot of anxiety and while I’m looking forward to doing vacation-y stuff in Scotland, I am dreading the convention more than a little.

I’m a writer, so I guess I’ll write about it.

A large source of my dread is, in all honesty, that I’m on business meeting staff this year. And while I really love the rest of the staff team and am excited to be working with them, there’s also the 100 fucking page long agenda (available from this URL if you want to give yourself sympathetic anxiety: https://glasgow2024.org/whats-on/wsfs-business-meeting/business-meeting-agenda/). I don’t feel like I’m talking out of turn to acknowledge that there are some controversial things on the agenda, thanks in no small part to a previous business meeting I did not participate in, and I’m also well aware of some of the shit that’s being said out there in the community.

I don’t have any programming at Glasgow other than the business meetings. Because they’re going to run so long, and because I had to take a hard look at both my mental and physical health and concluded that there is quite literally no way I could do more programming as an author and guarantee that I’d be even marginally pleasant and energetic for it.

I can’t really blame WSFS entirely, however, and it would be very unfair to do so. The rest of it is of a piece with the physical and adjacent mental health issues that I’ve been struggling with since November 2022. Things are improving (I’m still in remission! I’m finally starting to taper off immunosuppressants!) but I feel like I am not even living in the neighborhood of my old self yet, and who knows if I ever will again.

This is the first large convention I will have gone to since all of this bullshit started. Up until now, I’ve basically been living like a recluse in my own basement, because I’ve been taking my nephrologist very seriously when he’s told me how fucking bad it would be to catch even a cold while I’m on cyclosporine, let alone COVID. (Having had a single cold and a resulting sinus infection during this time has only highlighted how right he is.) So I’m incredibly anxious about the plane flight and the convention, since those are the times when I’m going to be around a lot of people in enclosed spaces. You can bet your ass I’m going to be wearing a mask all the time!

And frankly, I’ve never been really great with crowds, though I do a decent job of pretending when I’m “on” and being an official, friendly author person. But now, it’s been over a year and a half since I’ve been around any kind of sizable group of people that I’d like to actually interact in and that’s kind of freaking me out, too.

There’s one other thing, too, which feels vain and stupid but here we are. I’ve gained a lot of weight in the last year and a half, thanks to long-term high-dose steroids and being at times just very physically unwell. I’ve always taken pride in being a very natty dresser, and I know it’s how people tend to find me in a crowd. All that’s gone out the window; frankly, my old, nice clothes no longer fit me satisfactorily, and I haven’t had time, energy, nor budget to remedy that situation. So approaching this Worldcon now feels like heading for a battle without any armor.

Bonus author anxiety: I haven’t really done any writing (other than some tie-in work that I am proud of!) in a year and a half. Feels bad, man.

So yeah. I wish I could say I was looking forward to Worldcon, but I really can’t at this point. I’m hoping that once I’m there I’ll be able to relax and have some fun and see people I haven’t gotten to see in a while. Please, if you’ll be there and you’d like to hang out, let me know! I’m not really in a place to go to a party or barcon it, but I’d be up for grabbing lunch or sitting outside and having a tea* or going for a walk. Something low key.

On the other hand, if you see me and I look weird or am being unusually quiet or seem really anxious, I promise it’s not you. It’s me, and the fact that my kidneys tried to literally murder me a year and a half ago and I’m still not over it.

Also, please wear a mask at the convention. In all indoor spaces, really. I know I’m not the only immunocompromised person around.

 

* – guess who’s going to Scotland and can’t drink alcohol right now. Me. I’m talking about me.

Categories
worldcon

WSFS Business Meeting – Saturday Liveblog

Getting started a bit late thanks to a traffic jam at the elevators.

All we’ve missed so far is introductions and a quick reminder on rules. We join this business meeting, already in progress, as we vote for members of the Mark Protection Committee. There are four nominees and three spots.

1016: We are now moving on to the remaining resolutions that were not addressed yesterday. D.5 Solidarity with Ukraine. Chuck Serface, a former Peace Corps volunteer who was in Ukraine, reads a speech asking for our support of the fans in Ukraine. Ben Yalow speaks against the resolution, saying this is not WSFS business as we should not be involved in real world politics.

1020: Perianne Lurie moves to amend the resolution by removing the word “by fascist” due to Godwin’s Law. Debate is extended by one minute for each side. I am not tracking the quick speeches for and against, valid points being made on both sides to be honest. (No one saying what’s happening in Ukraine is okay, it’s more a discussion regarding if calling it fascism is useful or not.)

1028: The removal of “by fascists” is not passed. Debate continues regarding the motion; several of the “against” points were that the business meeting does not have power as a body to make this kind of resolution and it is not within our purview. (I disagree with this point, but it’s a fair one made by Kate.)

1030: Cliff Dunn requests a ruling from the chair on if the resolution is within the purview of the body. Jared rules it is. Cliff appeals the decision of the chair. Jared points out that the word “fans” is in this resolution and WSFS has previously passed a resolution being mad about Pluto no longer being a planet. Time for debate then has expired and no one gets to speak against. The ruling of the chair is then sustained.

1034: The resolution for solidarity with Ukraine as written is passed by the body.

1035: Resolution regarding Sergey Lukianenko is up next. An objection to consideration is raised and does not pass.

1037: Ben Yalow rises with a Point of Order that the WSFS constitution forbids the interference of WSFS is the matter of WorldCon guests, etc. Jared rules is not well taken because the resolution asks and does not direct or otherwise require action.

1039: Ben Yalow against; he agrees that making it mandatory would definitely be across the line. But he feels the line should not be the requirement of unconstitutional action, but rather the attempt to persuade.

1043: After a brief break to change memory cards in the camera. Elspeth points out that we are asking and therefore trying to influence a WorldCon committee and we are not allowed to do that. Time for debate expires.

1045: Cliff Dunn for rises to speak for the chair’s ruling. He points out that a WorldCon removing a GoH is not unconstitutional and we are not asking them to do anything unconstitutional. DisCon removed a GoH and they were allowed to do so.

1046: The chair’s ruling is sustained. We are out of debate time.

1047: Martin Pyne makes the point that per standing rule, there has not been substantive debate so therefore each side should get two minutes. Jared agrees and now each side gets some time to debate the actual resolution.

1049: I’m not going to try to summarize the debate, but I will note in this and the previous resolution, the slippery slope argument got pulled out each time. It is a quirk of mine that I find this line of argument particularly unconvincing.

1053: Resolution D.6 is adopted.

1054: MPC election results: Kevin Standlee, Ben Yalow, Nicholas Whyte

1056: Time for standing rules changes! Up next is C.1 – Making Business Meeting Feedback Possible. Cliff Dunn comes up to speak for. He says that the function of this rules change would be to allow committees–not individuals–to refer matters to the business meeting for debate and direction without actually having to put in amendments that could actually be passed when they aren’t really ready.

1059: Motion to amend to add the word “only” to the motion so that matters may only be referred back to committee. Ben Yalow speaks against the motion, pointing out that this would, for example, yesterday have made the motions be referred back to a committee that no longer exists.

1101: Kate Secor for, noting that this does not specify what committee the motions must be referred back to; new committees could be created.

1104: Vote for the motion to amend. The motion passes but… division is called for. TIME FOR THE FIRST SERPENTINE OF THE WORLDCON there is cheering, see, I’m not the only sicko here.

1107: The standing rules change is NOT amended. Serpentine says NO. Motion to call the question, but there is an objection.

1111: Don Eastlake notes that this standing rules change is not necessary; he is of the opinion that a committee can report back to the business meeting and ask for direction, though it seems the committee in question was unaware of that. A motion to refer this to the Nitpicking and Flyspecking Committee (which is very meta) is made and passed. This standing rules change will (hopefully) be back next year, having been nitpicked.

1113: Next standing rules change, C.2 If You Don’t Have To Print, Neither Do We. Cliff Dunn explains that this year it appeared the concomm was not going to print agendas for the business meeting. And he feels that if there are only electronic copies of the agenda, it should not be required of people with late motions to print out hardcopies; those should be electronically inserted instead into the electronic copy of the agenda.

1116: Elspeth rises to move to amend the motion to insert that a hardcopy should be provided if possible. “Where do you wish that inserted?” “In the appropriate place.” (Kate Secor finds the appropriate place.) It is noted that the availability of hardcopy is an access issue.

1118: Kent Bloom moves to refer to committee to consider the just requiring that harcopy be required,.

1120: Ben Yalow points out that there is obviously confusion as to who is required to do what and that needs to be hammered out first.

1123: The motion to refer to committee passes. Jared tries to make Kent Bloom the chair, but Jesi throws themself on that grenade instead. “Jesi wants it.” “I didn’t say I wanted it, I said put me in charge.”

1124: 15 minute recess!

1139: And we’re back. Starting up with the re-ratification of E Pluribus Hugo.

1140: Dave Wallace rises as one of the originators of EPH to speak for. He feels the overall effect of EPH has been very beneficial; after 5 years, it has worked reasonably well. One question is whether or not it is a black box. He did some analysis of published reports to do spot checking. He did analysis on, for example, the fancast category. I will not try to replicate it here.

1144: David Kaplan against, arguing that the EPH method may push works by marginalized creators down due to a slating effect of members of marginalized communities simply nominating those from their communities. He suggests instead that “no award” voting be used to point toward the existence of slates.

1146: Mr. Richards for EPH, reminding us that EPH came from a crisis point in WorldCon and the valid fear that if EPH falls off, the problem will return.

1147: Lisa Hayes against, calls it a black box.

1149: Kate Secor for, “It’s not that complicated.” To people outside this room, Hugo Nominations are a black box anyway.

1150: Dave McCarty against. Says that bullet voting gets past EPH and people do it both on purpose and inadvertantly. EPH and Five and Six work against each other.

1159: Question is called. We vote, but then… time for another division LET’S GOOOOOOOOO

1201: Question is definitely called. And EPH is RESOUNDINGLY re-ratified.

1203: E.2 30 Days Hath New Business. There is something going on and I’m not sure what. I think there’s an amendment proposed to this thing that’s already passed once? Don Eastlake has the amendment, which would be “this rule may be suspended with a 2/3 vote.” Because he argues this is basically a standing rule.

1208: Sorry for the long pause, having internet problems. Also, we are in the weeds in a serious way.

1210: We vote to take up the amendment to E.2. Then Jared rules that this is a lesser change so it will not need re-ratification.

1210: Kate Secor asks if the amendment will violate the standing rule against creating time loops because it would effectively have the meeting rule on something that occurs before the meeting is convened.

1211: Intense debate happening at the officer table.

1212: “All right, now that we’ve had English 101 here…” A time loop has not been created, per the chair.

1214: I have no idea what is happening any more, please hold.

1214: Don Eastlake moves to refer to committee, to report back tomorrow. Kate Secor argues that we already have so much to do tomorrow.

1217: Committee referral passes. We’ll revisit E.2 tomorrow.

1218: Short pause for memory card change, then E.3 The Statue of Liberty Play. (This is a Nitpicking and Flyspecking Committee thing.) No one stands up for debate, E.3 is ratified.

1222: E.4 A Matter of Days; no one stands for debate. E.4 is ratified.

1223: E.5 Non-Transferability of Voting Rights. Ben Yalow in favor; people who want to be involved can buy a membership. Speech against –

1228: Andrew Adams for – ConZealand got to have a really horrible experience dealing with the membership issue. He doesn’t care which way there’s clarity, but there needs to be clarification on if there is transferability or not. Because they had to make the decisions themselves and it was horrible. It needs to be in the rules one way or another. So if people don’t want this, please clarify it in the other way.

1228: Speech against – feels this is an attack on people with low and fixed income.

1230: Kate Secor for – doing a membership in WSFS and then separating attendance is not so different from professional organizations many people are part of. If memberships in WSFS are transferred there is no one tracking/informing what rights come with it. This would mean WSFS memberships cannot be transferred, but a ticket to the WorldCon can be transferred.

1232: Perianne Lurie against – This effectively makes memberships less valuable. It’s been fine the old way up until now.

1233: Ron Oakes for – fully supports this as a former Hugo database administrator. This does not effect the ability to transfer an attending “upgrade.” The person you sell your upgrade to must simply have a WSFS membership already.

1236: Attempt to call the question, which fails. Debate continues.

1251: Vote on ratification–division is called for. HOLD ONTO YOUR BUTTS FOLKS, THIRD SERPENTINE OF THE MEETING.

1253: Motion is ratified, 46-40.

1254: As we only have a few minutes left, we are going into recess tomorrow. Whoof we have a lot lined up for tomorrow.

Categories
worldcon

WSFS Business Meeting – Friday Liveblog

Business meeting agenda for this year can be downloaded here for those of you playing from home.

Hey everyone, we are up and running. Meeting got going at 1000, we are currently going over procedural information. This liveblog will be updated every 5-10 minutes when something is happening.

1010: Suggested time limits for establishing debate. Old business first. E.1 E Pluribus Hugo, 20 minutes (no objection). E.2 30 Days Hath New Business, 6 minutes. Objection – but Cliff Dunn then points out that the time must be voted on first before we play fill in the blank. 6 minutes passes. E.3 The Statue of Liberty Play (12 minutes). E.4 A Matter of Days (4 minutes). E.5 Non-transferability of voting rights (20 minutes).

1013: New constitutional amendments. F.1 The Zero Percent Solution (20 minutes). Kevin Standlee reminds us via Point of Order that motions to postpone indefinitely, etc, are in order at this time.

1016: F.2 To Defuse the Turnout Bomb, Cut the Red Wire (20 minutes). Nicholas Whyte points out that F.2 (this amendment) is rendered moot by the passage of F.1. Meeting votes to take F.2 up first before F.1.

1017: F.3 If a Tree Falls in the Woods and Nobody is Around (20 minutes). F.4 Best Game or Interactive Work (30 minutes). F.5 Fan vs. Pro (30 minutes). Terry Neill moves to postpone indefinitely. I second. Cliff Dunn against the motion; the committee explicitly wants to bring this up for the purposes of feedback. Dave McCarty for – points out that attempting to perfect a measure within the business meeting is not that useful. Joshua Kronengold against – the committee could not resolve these issues. KJ for – suggests this meeting is not the correct venue for this discussion, particularly due to the limited attendance for the business meeting. Motion to postpone indefinitely fails.

1029: F.6 Clearing Up the Artist Categories Forever (No, Really, We Swear It This Time!) (20 minutes). Motion to postpone definitely until the Sunday session of the meeting. It would be the first order of business on Sunday. Martin then proposes to amend the the motion to propose definitely until Sunday and after F.5 in case F.5 is not finished before Sunday. Kate Secor points out that the person who put F.6 together is observantly Jewish and would prefer F.5 not be debated on Saturday as well. Motion to postpone definitely passes.

1034: F.7 One Rocket Per Customer, Please! (10 minutes). Terry Neil motions to postpone indefinitely. Seconded. Kate Secor against motion to postpone – this needs to be debated because Best Series has moved from the intent of the category. Nicholas Whyte for – feels this burdens Hugo administrators and circumvents the will of the voters and should not have our time wasted. Dave against – also Hugo administrator, disagrees with Nicholas. Ben Yalow against – Feels this solution is too draconian but should be debated and sent back to committee. Cassie Beach for – feels it is against the will of the votes to tie their hands in this manner. Give it more time to shake out, the category is still pretty new. Terry Ash against – again points out we need to have this debate for because the Hugo Study Committee needs the feedback.

1044: Kate Secor points out that the rules change C.1, which would allow items to be debated without passing/failing, would allow us to debate these things if passed. The Chair (Jared) points out that we could suspend the rules if C.1 passes and then allow it to come into effect immediately for this purpose. Andrew Adams moves to refer F.7 to a committee to report back tomorrow. As committee was not specified, the chair says he will call it the Hugo Awards Study Committee and put Cliff in charge of it (“Oh, thanks,” says Cliff from the back, to much laughter). Cliff asks what the committee would be deciding – answer is that since it has not been given specific instructions, the committee can do whatever they want with it. Terry wishes to instruct the committee to discuss striking “nor may any series containing an individual installment which has won a Hugo Award of any type in its nominated format.”

1050: At this point we are in the weeds. We are now discussing amending the motion to refer to committee. Joshua Kronengold against amending the motion because as guidance, it’s terrible. The committee now has the impression that this is too draconian. Let them figure that out and come back.

1055: Motion to refer F.7 to committee fails. And now we still have to set debate time. Ben Yalow moves to amend F.7 by striking “nor may any series containing an individual installment which has won a Hugo Award of any type in its nominated format.” Elspeth against since this debate could happen tomorrow. Rafe Richards for as it will provide a very clear idea of what WSFS wants. Kate Secor against, pointing out that the amendment will effectively render F.7 and F.8 the same. Perianne Lurie against pointing out that it is similar but not the same. Motion to amend fails. Now once more Jared attempts to propose a time limit for debate.

1102: F.8 A Work, By Any Other Name (20 Minutes). Rafe Richards moves to postpone indefinitely for similar reasons that people wanted to postpone F.7, for circumventing the will of the voters. Motion to postpone indefinitely fails.

1106: Onto the standing rules changes… but first we’re having a ten minute recess.

1117: Point of information, which I originally did not hear. At one point Jared thanked Jesi Lipp for keeping him straight, to which their answer was, “I’ve never kept anyone straight in my life.” Bless u, Jesi.

1119: We are back in session and onto the standing rules changes. C.1 Making Business Meeting Feedback Possible (10 minutes). If You Don’t Have to Print, Neither Do We (10 minutes).

1121: Kate Secor with a question regarding C.1; the slide with the standing rules changes notes “These items will be effective this year if passed.” Confusion regarding previous discussion. Jared clarifies that these will take effect at the end of this business meeting and the slide is a mistake. Slide is corrected in real time.

1122: Committee reports.

1123: Debate time for resolutions will be set after committee reports, per Jared, since those will be coming up today.

1123: Kevin Standlee unexpectedly gives the report from the Mark Protection Committee, as his co-chair is absent much to his surprise. Not a lot new this year. They are taking up registering Lodestar as a mark. Opens to questions, but suggests it’s better to approach him individually or come to the meeting on Monday. No questions, he escapes.

1124: Cliff Dunn asks if, though it is the preliminary business meeting, if we can do debate on standing rules changes. We can. Jared exercises his executive privilege to say we will finish out committee business, then we will do standing rules changes, then we will address resolutions.

1126: Nicholas Whyte is nominated to the Mark Protection Committee. Ron Oakes self-nominates for the MPC. They will be put in with the three people whose terms are ending. Perianne Lurie points out that we also need to move to re-nominate those whose terms are ending, which we hastily do. MPC voting will take place tomorrow.

1128: Nitpicking and Flyspecking Committee. Don Eastlake says they combed through the constitution and found a number of places for improvement, but have chosen to not submit any of those this year as the meeting agenda was already quite full. They have documented in their report the changes that will have to be promulgated if E.2 passes this year.

1129: WorldCon Runners Guide Editorial Committee; Mike Willmoth reports that they have made progress. They are working on a new page for North American vs. non-North American WorldCons. Have spoken to many past con chairs to gather information for that.

1131: Jared exercises his executive privilege to re-appoint the members of the previous two committees. FOLLE Committee, Kent Bloom reports. They continue to nitpick away at various minor issues, particularly for the last two years where there has been confusion over who was where and when. Kent asked that the FOLLE committee continues and is re-formed.

1133: Hugo Awards Study Committee, Cliff Dunn reports. C.1 was proposed by members of the committee, but the committee did not have the remit to do so itself. They are working on a more clear process for issuing reports so that there is not a rush at the end. Clarifying subcommittee structure. Have set up Discord so that digests go to email to help email only people. Are taking steps to be more inclusive and transparent. The business meeting is a less than ideal way to deal with these things due to the need to travel; the committee’s accessibility via discord and email solves much of this.

1137: Nicholas Whyte objects to the continuation of the Hugo Study Committee as it has done very little. The amendments of this year are deeply imperfect and he fears it is a feature of the structure, not a bug. The committee had the time and chances to consult more widely with stakeholders and has not. The broad remit of the study committee inevitability of siloing. He suggests leaving the old structures behind and going back to forming committees as needed that will perforce need to structure themselves to be more inclusive of stakeholders.

1142: I am honestly not sure what just happened. The weeds, they are beckoning.

1144: Jared: “Is the member proposing to suggest the committee before reformed with specific instructions?” Joanie: “YES.” Jared: “What specific instructions?” Joanie: “I don’t know! Because you’ve never given us direction.”

1145: Oh god there’s a motion to go to a Committee of the Whole. Martin Pyne asks if there is a time limit. Jared: At this time… no. But we only have 45 minutes left.

1146: The nos have it, there will be no Committee of the Whole. The deputy executive officer’s elation is noted.

1147: Perianne Lurie moves to amend the resolution to reform the committee but have them elect a new chair. Which can be the same chair, but they will be directed to do an election.

1148: Kate moves that the cameras be turned off for this bit?? Seconded. Unsure what’s going on.

1150: This motion is debatable. Kate asks for the cameras to be off because since people are going to come up by name during discussion of successes and failings, we need not capture this for posterity on youtube.

1153: Against, member of the committee who believes these discussions could be useful to future WorldCons. Elspeth also for, the internet is forever.

1155: Olav Rokne against, because all records are important for further information, for historical knowledge of debate. This is important historical record for why decisions were made.

1157: Terry Ash for, on the committee and notes that the discussions at the end got nasty and she does not feel it needs to live on youtube forever.

1158: Perianne Lurie points out that turning off the record further disenfranchises people. Vote is taken, motion to turn off cameras fails.

1159: Now back to the amendment which I don’t even remember what it was… oh wait it’s the vote on the committee leadership. Martin against; rather than voting on a chairman, one should be appointed.

1201: Motion to amend the instructions to the committee fails. Motion to reform the committee also fails. The Hugo Study Committee is disbanded. Kent Bloom moves to thank the committee for its efforts over the last five years. Seconded by many. The committee is thanked for its efforts to applause.

1202: Site Selection Review Committee has no report per Jared, who is the chair. They go bye-bye.

1203: Financial reports. Martin Pyne has a question about DisCon and Chengdu and… I am not sure what this is. John here for DisCon and he apologizes for not being Mary Robinette Kowal for so many reasons. DisCon is holding the funds in trust for Chengdu but they are having a hard time getting the money forwarded. Ben Yallow, co-chair of Chengdu; because of the complexities of transferring money to China, they are in the process of setting up a new 501(2)3 corp in America that will be able to get the funds. The new corp will be located in… Wyoming.

1205: Kate Secor asks if the data for the finance will be transferred to the US or Chinese corporation, RE: data protection laws. Per John, the paper copies of the info have already been given the Chengdu.

1206: Cliff asks if there is a timeline for when Chengdu expects to open back up supporting memberships for those who were unable to participate in site selection last year. Per Ben Yalow, they are basically waiting on the banks so they can get the credit card processing in place and that’s what the holdup is.

1208: Motion to censure committee of Sasquan from Linda Deneroff: the financial reports have been functionally unchanged for years; they claim they will give $500 scholarships for SMOFCon or ConComCon but with no information on how these scholarships will be distributed. They are not contributing meaningfully to greater fandom.

1210: Mike Willmoth, vice-char of Sasquan. They had a lot of excess money due to the controversy we all know about. They sent a lot of money out after the convention. Gives examples of money that was sent out. Feels it is very unfair to censure Sasquan for these things when they have contributed a lot of other things feels like a shot in the foot. Kent Bloom indicates the WorldCon Heritage Association, which received a substantial contribution after Sasquan closed its books. Feels the remaining amount, which is really just failure to finish, does not warrant a censure, maybe just a kick in the “you-know-what.” Ben Yalow feels a resolution of censure is an extreme measure that should be applied very carefully; Sasquan has complied with the constitution.

1213: Motion to censure Sasquan fails. Linda notes that MidAmeriCon has not submitted a financial report and is strongly requested they submit theirs next year.

1215: Question from the elder Mr. Dashoff regarding LoneStarCon’s financial report.

1216: Kevin Standlee moves that we deal with the resolutions since we have only 15 minutes left in the meeting. The chair moves for unanimous consent to take the resolutions up. Asks for unanimous consent for D1-4 to approve the Hugo eligibility extensions. All pass with unanimous consent.

1218: D.5 and D.6 are given 4 minutes of debate each.

1218: Meeting is adjourned.

Categories
worldcon

CoNZealand Schedule

It’ll soon be time for CoNZealand! Come hang out with me in Zoom!

Reading: Alex Acks
NZ Time: 30 Jul 2020, Thursday 11:00 – 11:25, Reading Room 2
Mountain Time: 29 July, Wednesday 17:00 – 17:25

My Favourite Board Game
NZ Time: 30 Jul 2020, Thursday 14:00 – 14:50, Programme Room 5
Mountain Time: 29 July, Wednesday 20:00 – 21:00
Join us as we explore the wonderful world of board games. Our panel of expert gamers will discuss their favorites from the past 10 years. We’ll compare bragging rights, and swap tales of our victories (or defeats). Let’s include our top ten lists.

Ask a Scientist
NZ Time: 31 Jul 2020, Friday 10:00 – 10:50, Programme Room 1
Mountain Time: 30 July, 16:00 – 17:00
Here’s your chance to publically pick the brains of various scientists, including a geologist, a chemist, an astrophysicist and a neuroscience researcher.

Climate Fiction/Climate Fact
NZ Time: 31 Jul 2020, Friday 14:00 – 14:50, Programme Room 1
Mountain Time: 30 July, 20:00 – 21:00
What’s the relationship between fiction about climate change and real-world actions? Does where authors live and work affect their perspective, as they write about climate?

Categories
worldcon

I didn’t feel personally belittled until this moment: George’s Hugo Losers Party explanation

Over my years of being on the internet, I’ve learned a thing or two about apologies. It’s mostly been incredibly hard-won knowledge, informed by me giving shitty apologies and then learning the how and why of their shittiness when someone explained why they still felt hurt. Or me giving a shitty non-apology on purpose because I didn’t feel sorry, but wanted someone off my back. (I’ve modified the latter stance now to, “if I don’t actually feel sorry, I’ll do everyone involved the honor of not pretending badly that I am.”) A few of the lessons I’ve learned:

  1. Shorter is always better.
  2. If the explanation you feel the need to give implies that the injured party was wrong for being upset, then it’s not really an apology.
  3. If the explanation you feel the need to give implies that the injured party may have been injured but also behaved badly, then it’s not really an apology.
  4. If your apology involves passive-aggressive devices, then it’s not really an apology.
  5. If you make your apology about yourself, it’s not an apology.

I mention these in particular because I just finished reading the extremely long post George R.R. Martin wrote over at File770, which is kind of an apology about the Hugo Losers Party in Dublin in the sense that he admits a couple of times to having made mistakes, but not really.

If you’re not up on this particular WorldCon drama, here’s the Twitter thread I wrote while I was in the middle of it. The summary of it is that I was one of the Hugo Losers who had an invitation to the party. I was in the second bus, which was a double decker, that took a crowd of us over there after the ceremony. I arrived at approximately 23:40. This large load of people were informed by the door person that we would not be allowed into the venue due to the occupancy being at capacity. Which was then modified to thirty of us could be let in, first without our +1s, then with. There were way more than 30 of us standing out in a pretty chilly night. I have joint problems so that standing on cobblestones for any period of time puts me in some serious pain. I decided that rather crowd in and elbow my fellows to try to be one of the 30 allowed in I was going to leave with some of my friends. I was pretty upset about all of this, because invitations had been given out, and when one is invited to a party, one has a reasonably expectation of being allowed into said party.

We all on the same page, here? Good. There are a few things in particular I’d like to respond to in George’s epic non-apology.

I do not know that anything I can say will appease those who did not get into the party… but I can at least explain what happened, and why.

We’re writers. Words and word choice matter, and we’re not going to pretend otherwise. I do not need to be appeased like a tantrummy child, and I don’t appreciate the implication. I wanted an apology for those of us left out in the cold.

I actually do appreciate the explanation of the communication issues, of how things got so messy. The party is a large undertaking. It’s also George’s party, and as I have stated before, he can invite who he bloody well pleases. I also do appreciate this:

We knew the capacity of the floor we were renting well in advance, and worried whether the 450 limit would be a problem for us.   The possibility was there, we all saw that.    But there was no easy answer, so in the end we decided to go ahead as planned in the hopes that things would work out.   The final decision was mine.   It was the wrong decision.

Which is then rather deflated by:

A number of the louder Twitterers have stated SOMETIMES IN SCREAMING CAPS that it is simplicity itself to calculate the number of attendees at a party.   That makes me suspect that none of them have ever organized one, at least not one as big as the Hugo Losers Party.

Feel free to name me if you have a problem with me. I certainly used screaming caps because I was, I would hope understandably, upset. And you’re right; I’ve never organized a party as big as the Loser’s Party. I just did my own wedding, which was more than big enough. And the number one piece of advice that every party etiquette book will give you, the solid bedrock of planning, is that you don’t give out more invitations than you have space or food for. You assume that everyone will show up–because the minute you don’t do so, invariably they will. So yes, George has my sincere sympathies that it is not easy to figure out how many people will show up. It is actually an emotionally wracking thing to be a party host and decide who to invite and who to not, because you want everyone to have food and fun and feel welcomed.

But in the aftermath of messing up? Taking time out to tell us how hard everything is really does just make this about you and your feelings, and not the people left out in the cold.

And then there’s this moment of what-aboutism that’s particularly egregious:

(I do find it curious that, with all this Twitter talk about people being “turned away” from the Hugo Losers Party, no one is mentioning the far larger number of people turned away from the Hugos themselves.   I’ve been attending Worldcons since 1971, and in all those years all you ever needed to get into the Hugos was a con badge…  but this year, that was not enough.  You also needed to queue up and get a wristband.   As it happens, some people did not get that message, and others were unable or unwilling to queue).

Apparently I ought not complain about being turned away from a party I was invited to, because other people didn’t get into the Hugos themselves… with the Hugos notably not being an event that involves an invitation. This is another statement that serves to minimize any hurt myself or those in my position might have felt. It’s a pattern that continues on as the post progresses.

 I don’t doubt that the people on the door said, “You can’t go in” or some variant thereof.  That was, in fact, the case.  I doubt very much that this was all they said, however.   I would hope that they also added the word “now” and explained the reasons.   “You can’t go in now, we are at capacity, but as soon as some people leave, you will be welcome to enter.”   That’s what should have been said.   With such a large number of people descending on them all at once demanding entrance, however, it is possible that the fans on the door felt overwhelmed and defensive.   If any of them were rude or dismissive, that should not have happened, and I am deeply sorry for it.   By the same token, however, I would hope that the new arrivals were patient and understanding, once the situation had been explained to them, and that they treated the folks on the door with courtesy.   None of this was the fault of the fans who had agreed to man the door.   They were doing what they had to, to prevent the party from being shut down.   They were obeying what we were told was the law.

I will state in fairness that I have no idea what was said to the Door Dragon once I left, so maybe the implication that those left waiting were rude or nasty is true. I can only speak for when I was there. (And I have been a Door Dragon myself in the past for parties that are not in this series. I know it’s not fun.) What I can say is that we were not initially told that we’d be let in if we waited. My imperfect recall of the night says that eventually, that did get communicated–but with the fair caveat that no one had any idea how much waiting would be involved. However, while I was there many of us were not happy, but no one was taking it out on the poor person left guarding the door. I’ve certainly done my time in customer service; I know what it’s like to face an irate person and have no power to help them.

So again, maybe things got mean after I left. Knowing who was waiting there, I find that difficult to believe, but I also have no idea who showed up after me. But since the entire paragraph is so speculative (“I would hope that the new arrivals were patient and understanding…”) this ends up feeling like it’s being implied that we were being entitled dick bags about the whole thing. Something else I certainly do not appreciate.

At least one person decided the world needed to hear of this outrage and began to tweet furiously from the parking lot.

Hi, George.

The finalist who had first started blasting us on Twitter, angry that he was denied entrance, seemed to become even angrier when the door admitted thirty people… on the grounds that more than thirty were waiting, and somehow this was ‘playing Hunger Games.’

You want to know why we felt that way? Because in a large group of people, we were told 30 of us could come in. Which 30? Up to us. There was an absolute crush at the door. It was going to be first come, first serve, which meant that if you wanted in, you were basically in competition with the other people who had been left waiting. Personally, I had no interest in elbowing my way through a crowd in the hopes of getting in the door. A slightly dramatic statement? I’ll cop to it. Does it deserve to be so sarcastically dismissed? No.

And here’s the important thing, the crucial fact that none of the Twitter reports seem to mention: eventually everyone who waited got in.  They had to wait, yes, and I am sorry for that, and it should not have happened, and a number of mistakes were made, most by me.   But my minions and the Kiwis, and even the Guinness folk, did everything they possibly could under the circumstances, and sometime between 12:30 and 12:45, they cleared that parking area.   Yes, a certain percentage of those denied entry had left, some departing with a shrug and others with a snarl, but those who simply waited were all admitted eventually and were able to enjoy the last hour and a quarter of the party.

If everyone was let in by 12:45, that means, for example, I would have had to stand out in the chill, on cobblestones, for an hour. That is not something I can physically do. I know I’m not the only one who was in that boat. So, this is a particularly unhelpful for your guests who may have disabilities or health problems that prevent them from standing for lengthy periods of time. “You should have just waited.” Well, I can’t. Sorry.

I’ve known Joe and Gay Haldeman since my first con in 1971.  They arrived, could not get in, and chose to head back to their hotel.   The next day they joked with me about it; no anger, no recriminations, they had seen overcrowded parties before.

Ah, the classic, “other people didn’t mind, so obviously if you minded, you were wrong.”

But the same thing happens every weekend at nightclubs all across the country.

Funny enough, when the waiting game at the door started, I actually did say to those with me that it felt like being barred entry at a nightclub. And I have never particularly wanted to go to a nightclub. But the difference is this: when I go to a nightclub, I know that’s what I’m going to get. I come with the expectation that I might have to wait in line, and so on. Because maybe I’m doing it wrong, but I’ve never actually received an invitation to go to a nightclub. The difference here is, when one gets an invitation to an event, the invitation itself comes with the expectation that you are a guest, it’s known you’ll be showing up, and thus there will be space and food and drink for you. Because you were invited.

If you want to avoid this in the future, another easy fix might be to put on the invitation: “Space is limited and entry not guaranteed.” Set the right expectations, and there’ll be a lot fewer complaints.

We provided free transportation… and CoNZealand provided a lot more of same.    My minions worked for months planning the event, and even harder on the night.   So did the Kiwis.    To see them being pilloried on Twitter just confirms the sad fact that no good deed goes unpunished.   They deserve some thanks instead.

We were, indeed, provided free transportation that dumped us at the venue and then refused to return use to the convention center; thankfully, the smaller bus eventually returned and that’s how I got out of there. Other people got taxis. But the bigger point here is that, while I understand how much it sucks to feel unappreciated, it’s a bit much to expect appreciation from people who didn’t get into your “successful” party because of the planning problems. I’m also not going to thank a chef for the glorious meal they prepared if I was not allowed to even be in the same room as it.

The Hugo Losers Party is not intended to honor or celebrate the current year’s cop of Hugo finalists or exalt them above all others.  

If Hugo Losers aren’t welcomed into the party named “The Hugo Losers Party,” maybe it’s time to name it something else. I will also note that I don’t expect to be “exalted.” This is another implication I do not appreciate; add this to some other phrasing–because we can agree we are writers and we understand that words have meaning–and it is a beautifully subtle attempt to cast those of us who did not get in and were grumpy about it as entitled assholes who are childishly sullen that something wasn’t all about us. It’s a beautiful piece of utterly nasty writing, and I guess at this point, I do feel a bit charmed to have been insulted by a master.

But I will say this: None of those left in the cold that I spoke to expected this party to be entirely about us. None of us went there thinking we were the only people allowed in. We were all excited to be joining the larger club of Hugo losers. And when you’ve started off your night losing an award, it’s truly the cherry on the shit sundae to get told that you can’t even join the other losers. Too much of a loser, I guess.

In a wider emotional context, perhaps consider this: Most of us writer types grew up as the excluded, introverted nerds. I think it’s understandable that we have particular feelings about, in our glorious nerd convention, being excluded from the party where all the cool kids are. I’m not claiming that’s rational, but the whole point about emotions is they aren’t. And maybe it’s worth considering why this whole thing has felt so entirely hurtful instead of minimizing it or telling people who lack your fame and reach, “No, you’re the meanies here.”

Also this?

Also, whereas in the past categories like fanzine and semiprozines only had one editor, and therefore one nominee (Andy Porter for ALGOL, DIck Geis for ALIEN CRITIC, Charlie Brown for LOCUS, Mike Glyer for FILE 770, etc.), now most of them seem to be edited by four, five, or seven people, all of whom expect rockets and nominee invitations.

“Expect” rockets. Expect. As if they shouldn’t for being part of a team that did good work and got an award.

What a thing to say.

Regarding the future parties, I don’t think I have a dog in that fight because I sincerely doubt I will be getting nominated for another Hugo any time soon–or due to my daring to squeak in capslock on Twitter, get invited again. It’s George’s party, and he can invite who he bloody well pleases. I just sincerely hope in the future, he’ll manage expectations a bit better; honestly, just putting on the invitation that admission is not guranteed, is first-come, first-serve, etc, would have headed off a lot of the hurt feelings from this year. If you want to run the place like a nightclub, say it up front. We can save troubling discussions about social status and popularity contests for another time.

Now that I’ve written all this out, let me tell you what I’m definitely not looking forward to: The commentariat who will doubtless frame my response as “chiding” or “lashing out.” I know how this works, and me calling it out in advance won’t change anything. But as I’ve said multiple times in this post, words matter. Watch how things are framed. In this moment, I’m a grown-ass adult having a disagreement with another grown-ass adult about how he ran his party and has chosen to not-apologize. I am not a child attempting to school a parent. George’s experience, fame, and money make him a lot of things, but those are neither “someone too exalted for me to disagree with” nor “my dad.”

Categories
worldcon

[WorldCon] Quick Summary: WSFS Business Meetings 2 & 3

Again, maximum mea culpa, yesterday was a garbage fire, and for more reasons than you might expect.

Liveblog of the preliminary meeting here.

Liveblog of business meeting 1 here.

Summary of the preliminary and meeting 1 here.

Liveblog of business meeting 2 here.

Liveblog of business meeting 3 here.

The agenda is available here.

 

Business Meeting 2 Summary

  • Site selection! Washington, DC will have WorldCon 2021, DisCon III.
  • “No Deadline for Nominations Eligibility” is amended to make deadline of January 31, gets a little name change due to there now being a deadline, and is sent on to ConZealand for ratification.
  • “Best Game or Interactive Experience” is referred to the Hugo Study Committee with instructions that it should be given to an appointed subcommittee in which the originators of that amendment will be invited to participate.
  • “Five and Five,” through cunning action, is amended to become “Five and Six” while still removing the sunset provisions. The new “Five and Six” passes and will be sent on to ConZealand for ratification.
  • The earlier motion to suspend five and six for 2020 fails.
  • “Clear Up the Definition of Public in the Artist Category Forever” passes and will be sent on to ConZealand for ratification.
  • Serpentine count: 0

Business Meeting 3 Summary: 

  • On handouts presenting arguments (this year, both were against amendments) being brought to the business meeting, the chair rules that that there is nothing in the rules that disallows this, so it is allowed, and notes that we have the ability as a body to change the rules.
  • “Non-transferability of Voting Rights” is referred to committee.
  • “Preserving Supporting Membership Sales for Site Selection” passes on, to be considered for ratification at ConZealand.
  • Congratulations on Jesi for chairing their first business meeting! Kevin gave them an engraved gavel!
  • Serpentine count: 0
Categories
worldcon

[WorldCon] WSFS Business Meeting 3 Liveblog

Liveblog of the preliminary meeting here.

Liveblog of business meeting 1 here.

Summary of the preliminary and meeting 1 here.

Liveblog of business meeting 2 here.

The agenda is available here.

 

1003: Due to a lack of coffee service at the Business Meeting, your liveblogger is slightly late from running to the local Centra to get coffee for herself and tea for Alex.

1008: The Chairperson assures us that not having coffee and tea today is a punishment for making us run into Monday. This is fair.

1012: DIscussion about the hanbdouts yesterday as being debate. By bringing debate into the room as a handout, they are cutting into debate time and this is unfair. Requests a ruling on this from the chair. Due to the nature of printed and distributed materials, this point is in order. Nothing in the rules that explicitly disallows handouts of any kind, not any provision about printed materials classified as debate. While they qualify philosophically as debate, procedurally they do not. With the state of our current rules, they are not disallowed. However, this will be addressed next year with the new resolution proposed at the end of yesterday’s meeting.

1018: Motion to appeal the ruling of the chair. Arguments in favor include privileging the opinions of the motion publishers. Ruling is sustained, however it is good to remember the meeting has the ability to change the rules and that if we wish to do so, we have the power.

1029: Item D9, Non-Transferrability of Voting Rights. This would essentially divorce the membership of WSFS from attending the con. There seems to be some confusion about whether this means attendees would be able to attend the Business Meeting, and if transferred supplements need a supporting membership, and if that means voting members would pay more than people who only attend.

1036: Motion to refer to committee with Dave McCarty, Ben Yalow, and Kate Secor (along with anyone else who is interested and willing). Ben agrees to chair the committee.  Vote to refer to committee passes.

1044: On to Item D10, Preserving Supporting Membership Sales for Site Selection. Cliff Dunn in favor as it would clarify existing procedure and prevent some gaming of the system. Kent Bloom against, as it seems very nitpicking, and that it should be up to the con’s administrators to deal with. Todd Dashoff in favor, we have a nitpicking committee, let them have a few more nits if they want. It is a good idea because many new sites are in the running and it makes it clear to them. PRK against, to refer to the same comnmittee as D9 as that would have an effect on D10. Kate Secor against referring as it is a simnple change, and the committee can always add language about this as part of their deliberation. Joshua Kronengold moves to close debate. Motion is not referred to committee.  Underlying motion passes, D10 will be passed on to next year.

1047: The Business Meeting commends the head table for their work this year. A chair falls down, but the Chair assures us they have not fallen down. Kevin Standlee rises for recreational parlimentarianism.

1050: The Chair is presented with an engraved gavel which says “Jesi Lipp, Chair, World Science Fiction Society, 2019, Dublin, Ireland”. The Chair admits they had fun, even though it is sick and twisted to call this fun. Audio and video crew is thanked. Meeting is adjourned sine dea.

Categories
worldcon

[WorldCon] WSFS Business Meeting 2 Liveblog

Liveblog of the preliminary meeting here.

Liveblog of business meeting 1 here.

Summary of the meetings so far here.

The agenda is available here.

(Corina is still liveblogging!)

1011: Good morning all!  The Site Selection results are in, and our 2021 Worldcon will be DisCon III in Washington, DC. Please see DisCon3.org for more details. As usual, Minneapolis in ’73 got a few votes – I for one am looking forward to it.

1018: Standing ovation for DisCon III Fan Guest of Honor Ben Yalow. Congrats Ben!

1025: Reminder that the 2020 NASFiC was awarded to Columbus – Columbus2020NASFiC.org is the website.

1028: Quick presentation by CoNZealand. Housing opens in early December, next price rise is Oct 1. Program signups are available now. CoNZealand.nz is the website.

1030: Kevin Roche passes along some funds from Worldcon 76 to Dublin 2019, CoNZealand, and DisCon III.

Half hour recess for the Worldcon Chair photo, until 1100.

1100: Meeting called to order.

1114: Resumed with D8, No Deadline for Nominations Eligibility. There is an amendment to add a 2024 sunset clause by Martin Pyne, who argues for it as a case against self-promotion. Nicholas Whyte opposes it because either it is a good idea or it is not, and a sunset clause would be counterproductive. Elspeth Kovar speaks in favor because it is easier to not vote for something than to vote it down – we do not have to wait until the end of the time period to vote it down if we don’t want. Will give us a chance to test it. Joshua Kronengold calls the question on the amendment. Amendment fails. D8 proceeds unamended. Speech in favor – we should not be ruled by fear. As long as we have EPH and other measures to prevent slating, we should not hamper the ability of people to vote. Perrianne Lurie against as people will game the system. Terry Ash, speech in favor, we should not try to define “unworthy” and putting a deadline on membership does not magically make a work better. Kevin Standlee against, original reason for a deadline had no relationship to 2015 and there was an “entryism” problem which is why we had a Jan deadline. Moves to amend to reinstate Jan 31 as the deadline.

1120: Entryism is always a problem, and keeping members of the previous Worldcon helps to balance this. Jan 31 is a decent compromise and it will return us to where we were. Todd Dashoff against, doesn’t see the point of ping-pong between January and December. RIck Kovalchik, against, technology is not perfect so it is good to have time between buying a membership and nominating a work. Amendment passes. PRK moves to extend debate time by 4 minutes but it is not seconded. Or is it? A second is heard. However it is not extended. D8 passes.

1122: D13 is up next, Best Game or Interactive Experience. The maker of the movement will not be here tomorrow so we will take it up now.

1132: Ira Alexandre speaks in favor of a Hugo Award for games as it is viable, includes low-cost and free elements, and because it is a unique storytelling experience particularly related to speculative fiction. This would be the first media-inclusive award for games. GamesHugo.com for the full report. Perrianne Lurie motions to refer to committee to report back next year. Lisa Padol against the motion to refer, first because the committee has a lot of work and we don’t need to add to it. Second, there is a 60-page report with significant research. We could not do more. Rafe Richards for the referral to committee because he would like to reword or rework the proposal in committee. Alex Acks speech against (they will time themselves), echoes Perrianne’s sentiment and would say if there is a committee it should be its own specific one rather than the general committee. Kate Secor in favor bvecause the Hugo Study Committee is moving to a more direct forum for discussion and will make subcommittees so it would be OK to have it as part of the main committee. Also, there is so much discussion to be had that it should be in a format other than the Business Meeting.

1142: Martin Pyne motions to amend the motion to refer by having a dedicated subcommittee in the Hugo Awards Study Committee.  Perrianne Lurie against this amendment because having the same 9 people discussing the same thing will not be productive. Terry Neill in favor because the Hugo Study Committee can appoint others than just the same 9 people as well. Lisa Padol moves to call the question on the amendment. Passes. Back to the motion to refer to committee. Ben Yalow in favor of referring, because of technical issues with the wording of the motion due to category overlap, etc. and that a committee is better suited to cleaning these up. (Ira mentions these are explicitly addressed in the supplementary materials.) Question called on the motion to refer. Passes.  D13 is referred to committee/subcommittee to report back next year.

1147: Moving on to D7, Five and Five. Karl-Johan Noren in favor, wants to keep the reading burden on voters low and reduce strain on Hugo Ceremony, Reception Committee, Loser’s Party, and admins. We should trust in EPH as it is a better system. Rafe Richards moves to amend the motion so it does not subtract six or add five to 3.8.1. Head table consults as to what this would actually mean.

1159: Chairperson clarifies what this amendment would do – it would keep 6 but still get rid of the sunset clause. (Reversing the intent of the original motion.) The 5 and 6 was established as a motion against bad actors, and we should not dismantle these. The Worldcons can bear the financial burden, and if we are going to spend money on things, the Hugo Awards a re a good thing to spend it on. Mostly, this gives us more amazing works recognized that we can be exposed to. This is a great thing! Let’s keep it. Kathryn Duval against the amendment because it reverses the intent of the original motion, and for many of the same reasons stated earlier, because it does not respect the original intent of those who sponsored it. Lisa Hayes in favor because the bad actors are not gone. People can still submit fewer if they do not read all the things. In favor of increasing administrator pay if necessary. Chris Duval against because the amendment is unjust (going against the spirit of the original).

1202: Vote on the amendment (to keep 6, and to get rid of the sunset clause) passes. Back to D7, moved to call the question. Motion passes, keeping 6 and removing the sunset clause.

1207: B4, Suspend 5 and 6 for 2020, is up. Lisa Padol, it would be good information to test this out for data purposes since we are now considering keeping 6 permanently. Rafe Richards, let’s keep 6 for the exact same reasons as stated earlier. Moved to call the question. Motion fails, keeping 5 and 6 for 2020.

Ten minute recess to resume at 1217.

1232: Request to take up D11 now due to access needs. No objection. D11 is Clear Up the Definition of Public in the Artist Category Forever. Terry Ash in favor because too much is left up to the administrators as the only explicit definition is “convention art shows”. This means the Internet can be excluded. This would define “public” with more examples and give an expansive and inclusive definition in the constitution. Martin Pyne against, moves to refer to committee to discuss both this and the fan artist category. Reasoning is that the discussion should be holistic, and making piecemeal changes is not an answer. Cath De McMahaffee against moving it to committee as we are so currently dealing with it actively we should be moving more quickly than the committee, which did not even meet on this question last year. Ben Yalow in favor of moving to committee, as while the art committee failed to meet, the Hugo Study Committee did meet many times, so they can be trusted to discuss this and report back. Christopher Braithwaite against moving to committee, sees no reason not to do this as the study committee can still make changes in the future, this does not prevent them from doing so. Cliff Dunn, we should change both Fan and Pro Artist as part of the same motion rather than as two over separate years, so in favor of committee. Terry Ash, categories are borked however no reason not to fix for next year something that can be fixed now. Terry Neill, we have wasted a year, it was a grave injustice to disqualify a work because it was only displayed on the Internet, this is a message that the will of the body is to recognize the Internet as a viable medium for displaying art. Not moved to committee.

1133: Joshua Kronengold moves to call the question. Vote on D11 passes.

1136: We are going to reorder the agenda to take up B.5, Credit to Translators of Written Fiction, and an additional standing rule change, as they will take less time.

1243: B5 would award a Hugo to the credited translator of a novel, novella, novelette, and short story, when the original text is not in English. A translator’s contribution can make a great difference in preserving the quality of the original work, and this should be recognized. Kent Bloom against, confused about what this is trying to do – it is within the authority of the administering Worldcon or dealt with as a constitutional amendment depending on what they are trying to do, so is not appropriate as a resolution. Ben Yalow against, couple of technical issues – we award the Hugo to the work not the author, so we should not award it to the translator. Also, we do not award the editor, cover artist, etc. of a particular winning work as would be equivalent. Joshua Kronengold wishes to extend debate, but it fails. Resolution fails.

1257: B.6 Standing Rule Change, if you are making a written response to new business you must submit it 14 days before the business meeting so the origininators of the new business can have a chance to repsond in the same (written) fashion. Kate Secor appreciates the thought behind such written responses, but agrees with Nicholas Whyte that it is unfair that the originators are unable to respond in a similar fashion. This would give us a procedure to fall back on. Don Eastlake against, moves to refer to Nitpicking and Flyspecking for next year. Rick Falcheck against as hearing some more opinions would be great, however we have no time remaining for this.  Linda Deneroff against as secretary because it would negate the 30 day submission time that came in handy this year. Referred to committee.

12589: D9 and D10 to be considered tomorrow. Meeting adjourned for today.

Categories
worldcon

[WorldCon] Quick Summary: WSFS Preliminary Business Meeting and Business Meeting 1

Liveblog of the preliminary meeting here.

Liveblog of business meeting 1 here.

Preliminary Business Meeting Summary

  • Standing Committess gave their reports and were re-appointed for the following year. If you’re curious about the reports, find them here.
  • Special committees also gave their reports.
    • The subcommittee that was supposed to address fan artist/professional artists did not turn in a report and was dissolved, to be folded back into the Hugo study committee, at request of the chair.
    • No report from the remote participation committee, with a promise that shit will be gotten together in the coming year, as shit was most definitely not together this past year. On that understanding, committee was re-appointed for another year.
  • San Jose WorldCon gave a brief report and brought pass-along funds to be distributed. They will be holding more funds in reserve pending the resolution of the lawsuit. Current status of that is four of the five claims have been dismissed with prejudice (leaving only the defamation claim), and all those named in the complaints except the WorldCon itself have been freed from this mess as well.
    • My opinion, which does not in any way reflect what was said by the WorldCon chair, who was very circumspect and remarkably restrained: JDA remains, miles ahead of the depressingly robust competition, science fiction’s most pathetic piece of shit, and I hope he ends up having to pay every penny of legal fees for this frivolous nonsense.
  • A standing rules change is made to allow the Committee of the Whole to extend its discussion/debate time without having to ask the meeting for permission, to save us from the absolute mess we had last year.
  • Eligibility of the films Prospect and Worlds of Ursula K. Le Guin were extended via resolution.
  • Resolution to suspend 5 and 6 for 2020 was definitely postponed until after we deal with the proposed amendment (“Five and Five”) that would render it moot.
  • Debate time is set for all of the many new constitutional amendments. Mostly.
    • “Best Translated Novel” is postponed indefinitely.
    • An attempt is made to postpone “Five and Five” indefinitely, which fails.
    • An attempt is made to postpone “Best Game or Interactive Experience”  indefinitely also fails, possibly due to the argument that even if the amendment might fail, it deserves the courtesy of debate.
  • Serpentine Count: 1

 

Business Meeting 1 Summary

  • Two amendments passed on from last year are ratified: “Adding Series to the Series” and “Comic Books and Graphic Stories”
  • The third amendment passed on from last year, “Notability Still Matters,” fails to be ratified on a Serpentine, 41 for to 44 against. There is also an explosion of parliamentary wrangling and total confusion.
  • The broadside of Nitpicking and Flyspecking Committee amendments proceeds:
    • “Clarification of WorldCon Powers,” “A Problem of Numbers,” and “The Needs of the One” are unanimously passed on to the next business meeting for ratification.
    • “Disposition of NASFiC ballot” and “That Ticket Has Been Punched” are passed on to the next business meeting after some wrangling about wording and meaning.
    • “The Forward Pass” is referred back to the Nitpicking and Flyspecking Committee after a series of amendments ate all of the debate time. (Leaving me clutching my stopwatches and unable to scream, “You have now made this completely noncompliant with GDPR!”)
      • Cue more parlimentary confusion during this item, though not nearly as severe as what we had during “Notability Still Matters.”
  • After the absolute mess that was “The Forward Pass,” the business meeting wisely conceded that maybe “Five and Five” was going to be a little too rough to try to get through in one day… so after failing to adjourn, we decided to take up “No Deadline for Nominations Eligibility” instead, because that was definitely going to be a cause for much less emotional debate*. Debate was started, and then the meeting was adjourned after a motion to amend the amendment with a sunset clause was offered, because the wordsmithing needed to be done. Debate will resume with its time refreshed tomorrow.
    • * yes, sarcasm.
  • As a note, the “Best Game or Interactive Experience” amendment will be taken up as the Business Meeting 2 immediately after Site Selection is finished and we clean up the mess we started and didn’t finish on “No Deadline for Nominations Eligibility,” as the creator of that amendment will not be able to attend on Monday.
  • Serpentine Count: 2
Categories
worldcon

[WorldCon] WSFS Business Meeting 1 Liveblog

The agenda is available here.

Alex: Sorry that I didn’t get a summary of the preliminary done for y’all yesterday. My schedule was kind of a garbage fire–thankfully today is a bit calmer. I’m hoping to catch up on things this evening and get you TWO whole summaries. Also, I appreciate your patience on spelling corrections, etc. Liveblog will commence shortly under normal rules, courtesy of my super awesome housemate Corina, long may she reign.

 

0959: GOOD MORNING BUSINESS MEETING FANS! I have been told I should direct you all to my Twitter, which is @Zeteram. Mostly I post pictures of my cats.

1007: Business meeting commences a little late as the head table was having a discussion about something. A new Resolution is added to the meeting called B4: Credit to Translators of Written Fiction, to say that when a work in translation for Novel/Novella/Novelette, and Short Story wins a Hugo, that a Hugo is also awarded to the credited translator.

1009: Kent Bloom has a response from Helsinki regarding surplus funds.  There are funds, and they will consider the applications but have not currently made any grants.  He cannot find anyone representing MidAmericon II for the same question.

1012: Commentary on item C3 (A Response to the Proposal to Eliminate the Membership Deadline for Hugo Award Nominating Rights) is distributed. Ballots for MPC membership voting are distributed.

1017: Voting for MPC completes. Tellers will count the ballots.

1020: The meeting moves to Business Passed On. Debate for item C1, Adding Series to the Series, commences. Jo Van Eckeren states it is a tidying-up measure. No speeches against. Motion passes unanimously.

1026: Item C2: Comic Books and Graphic Stories. Kate Secor explains that the Graphic Story category should include “or Comic” as a clarification for comics fans. Rene Walling crunched the numbers and explains that 54% of the winners and 63% of the finalists have been comics.  Also, manga fans may feel excluded as may other fans of similar media. It should not be our responsibility to list everything. Joshua Kronengold speech for, explaining that “Graphic Novel” has been used by people who dislike comics and it is a sign that we don’t dislike comics if we use the term “comics”. Perianne Lurie for, the title makes no difference compared to the substance so if the title is offensive we should fix that. Chris Barkley for, explains there was initally a debate to add Comics in the first place and that it was always his intent to do so eventually. Motion passes.

1035: Item C3, Notability Still Matters. Dave McCarty speech for, explains it would lower the burden on administrative staff as many administrators publish a long “long list” anyway. B y getting rid of the “must”, it leaves this open. Cliff Dunn moves to amend the motion by adding “Notwithstanding the 4% rule, any round that affects the elimination of a candidate that either appears on or changes the final ballot shall be included in the results”.  Chairperson refers the question of whether this is a lesser change or greater change to the body of the meeting. Motion to refer the amendment (and thereby the entire motion) to committee to report back tomorrow. There is some confusion as to whether this is permissible and whether it is a lesser or greater change.  Chairperson declares a pause to consult with the head table.

1043: Confusion about parlimentary procedure abounds.

1047: Motion is referred to committee after reading aloud from Robert’s Rules of Order. Cliff Dunn and Dave McCarty will be on the committee along with anyone else they choose.

1048: MPC election results reported. Kevin Standlee, Ben Yalow, and Jo Van Eckeren are elected to the MPC for the current year. Recess to reconvene at 1100.

1100: Meeting reconvenes. Now with more coffee! Or tea, as the case may be.

1108: The committee that was told to report back tomorrow is now finished and reports back. Dave Wallace points out if the committee reports back tomorrow we will reset the time limits, but if they report today we have no time left. Chair says we can extend the time today if necessary. Vote to allow the committee to report today (passed). Cliff Dunn reports. The intent was to avoid a situation where something had not made 4% but had made the final ballot, but due to the way EPH works this would have effectively done nothing. Amendment withdrawn.

1112: Debate time on C3 reset to six minutes. Speech against, Dave Wallace. Summarizes the handout as he was a co-author, largely that the Short Story category is disproportionally affected and that it would have left off many excellent stories by well-known names in the field. As this helps Hugo voters to discover new works, the harm of leaving this information off outweighs the benefits of the proposed amendment.

1118: Ben Yalow in favor, less than 4% nominations are noise not signal. Kate Secor against, statistically they may not be significant but emotionally they are.  The field is full of great material and any attention paid to outstanding works is helping promote them, and this is a good thing. Rene Walling in favor, “may” be withheld is not binding and he trusts the Hugo administrators on this. Dave McCarty in favor, as an administrator it is unlikely this would ever be used on a “live” Hugo and would benefit administering single-digit nominations, mostly for Retros, because we use the same rules for both. Leave the judgment to the administrators, who care deeply abvout the awards. Lisa Padel speech for, recognize that administrators are human and this places a tremendous burden on them. Vote to adopt C3. CLOSE CALL…HOLD ON TO YOUR BUTTS!

1121: Serpentine results show 41 for, 44 against. C3 fails.

1124: Moving on to new constitutional amendments. If these pass, they will be passed on to next year’s Business Meeting to be ratified. Item D1, Clarification of Worldcon Powers. Kevin Standlee explains the reasoning for the amendment – the Worldcon for each year has the authority over Hugos for that year, and a future Worldcon cannot affect the Hugos for any other year, to make it mechanically impossible for a future Worldcon to “take away” Hugos from a previous year. Motion passes unanimously.

1130: D2, Disposition of the NASFiC Ballot. Would resolve Site Selection if it crashes at a NASFiC, which has never happened, but this would allow for a safety net and call a Business Meeting at a NASFiC solely to deal with site selection. Couple questions clarifying this take up the time allotted for debate in favor. Kent Bloom speech against as he believes it is unnecessary as the NASFiC rules currently stand, and that it would only encourage recreational parlimentarianism. Motion passes.

1133: D3, A Problem of Numbers. Technicalities to clarify that you can vote in the Final Hugo Awards and the Site Selection even if you do not know your membership number or it has not yet been assigned, as the staff may supply it for you. Joni Daschoff relates a personal experience when it was difficult to find that number, so she supports the amendment. Motion passes unanimously.

1135: Item D4, The Needs of the One. Clarifies that an item can be moved around on an individual ballot, while the other clauses in the line item applies to categories as a whole. Motion passes unanimously.

1142: Item D5, The Forward Pass. Clarifies that the pass-along of member information to future Worldcons must be done in compliance with all appropriate laws such as GDPR. Perianne Lurie believes it is unnecessary because site selection is purchasing a membership, and if you did not want this information transferred you do not want your membership and should not vote in site selection. Kate Secor argues it is not our job to keep people from being stupid, and as we are written we are not in compliance with the law, so it is important to explicitly state this. Move to divide the question – it should be part of the ballot process, so 2.7 amendment and 4.1.3 amendment should be voted on separately. Are we really going to call a division on dividing the question.  Are we really.

1144: A division on dividing the question is not called. The question is not divided. The Chair cracks down on people rising for non-privileged questions.

1155: Rene Walling moves to change the wording of “addresses” to “contact information” as we live in a rapidly-changing informational technology society. New wording approved. Dave Wallace would like to further amend 4.1.3 to give permission to reject payment of those who do not choose to pass along their information. Several people rise to speak against this amendment – we should allow people to give a donation to the winning Worldcon, as it were. This amendment fails. Kate Secor wishes to amend the 4.1.3 to say “to those who have not opted out” rather than “to those who have given permission for”. (As the liveblogger understands it, that would violate GDPR, but the liveblogger is by no means an expert in privacy laws.)

1200: Todd Daschoff notes that 4.1.3 does not have the language about local law so we may be requiring something illegal and should not do this. Donald Eastlake says we should put in “as the agent of the winning committee” and suggests moving the pending amendment and motion to a committee to report next year. Item is referred to the Nitpicking and Flyspecking Committee. Ten minute break.

1212: Meeting called back to order with item D6, That Ticket Has Been Punched.

1222: Jo Van for, explains the intent of the motion. Kate Secor against as it introduces an inconsistency, as the same rules do not apply to Novel.  Understands the intent, but the result is troubling. Terry Neill speech for, it is not inconsistent with Novel as if a novel was a finalist when originally published it is not eligible again with a second international publication. Movement to add the words “in English” (did not catch name of mover) to the amendment. Jo Van against amendment as it is not fair to recognize a series twice on the merits of a single work even if the work is not in English. PRK for amendment as a single work in translation can substantially change the series (although methinks this is missing the point of the original motion). Dave Wallace thinks amendment is unnecessary. Joshua Kronengold likes intent of amendment but dislikes the effects. Ben Yalow points out we have a lot of inconsistencies and special cases, no reason to argue against this just for that reason. Vote on the “in English” amendment. Results unclear, so. SERPENTINE!

1226: Movement to add “in English” to the amendment has 39 for, 29 against. Vote on the amended motion passes.

1229: D7, Five and Five will take significant time to discuss and debate, so there is a motion to adjourn for the day. Motion fails. Todd Daschoff suggests we take up D8 instead, which passes.

1240: Nicholas Whyte speaks to D8, No Deadline for Nomainations Eligibility. It was originally proposed to facilitate three-stage voting, which did not pass at that time.  Being as this was unnnecessary, as a two-time Hugo administrator he now understands Dec 31 is a bad deadline as it is holiday, etc. It is easier to allow any members to nominate until nominations close. He understands there are problems with this, but we shouldn’t be scared of the bad guys and should try to run the best awards we can. Terry Neill is against as she has been the Hugo Helpdesk person for several Worldcons. We are still facing slating. Ira Alexandra is for the amendment as there are economic reasons people may hold off on buying memberships until after January 1. Jo Van against as it helps keep entryism down; the Christmas issue is a non-issue if they vote in site selection. Cathy McMahaffee speech for as she buys membership in Jan as she has no money in the summer, and does not participate in site selection. It is the will of the community, so we should encourage people to nominate rather than discourage them. Martin Pyne moves to add a sunset clause for 2024. We will adjourn for today and take this up tomorrow with proper wording of the sunset clause.

1242: Meeting adjourned. Important note: we will be moving to address D13, the video game amendment, immediately after Site Selection and D8 tomorrow, as the maker of D13 cannot be here on Monday.